[hmurchison]

Apple is simply not going to promote windows. I think they're taking the right steps to make sure the attempts at running windows or linux do not harm the Macintosh experiment but they'd be fools to market their competition as a feature.

[McSandwich]

Some interesting articles on the subject:

http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/...lated_articles

http://www.networkitweek.co.uk/itwee...on-looms-large

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25576

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanhe...1620051018.asp

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by hmurchison Apple is simply not going to promote windows. I think they're taking the right steps to make sure the attempts at running windows or linux do not harm the Macintosh experiment but they'd be fools to market their competition as a feature.

They would certainly not be fools.

Neither is a retail chain that offers brands in it's stores that compete with it's private brands/labels. Especially the smaller chains have to do that in order to attract customers. It's the bigger retail chains which keep out brands that they don't own.

(Following this reasoning, you'd expect that Dell would install a Dell version of Linux on their hardware, maybe with Star Office on it, and offer Windows with MS Office only as an option)

[hmurchison]

A retail chain isn't a platform. You don't grow your marketshare by making it easy for your competitor to benefit from your every sale. Apple has already gone on record as saying that they won't prevent the running of Windows on the Mactels. I think you'll find that getting Windows and Linux up and running will be left to a 3rd party.

We don't want the assumption that windows is on every Mactel as that will indeed hamper the development of native Macintosh applications.

Virtualization is going to happen regardless of whether Apple wanted it or not. Now that the common denominator is intel procs and chipsets I expect to see companies like VMware jump into the fray. Apple really doesn't have to do much other than add a bit of code to manage the possibility of a tripple boot system.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by hmurchison A retail chain isn't a platform. You don't grow your marketshare by making it easy for your competitor to benefit from your every sale.

Windows is a 3rd party software developer and not a pure competitor like Dell and HP-Compac. It's a benefit when a Mac can run Linux, so it's going to be even more of a benefit when a mac can run Windows.

Apple has already gone on record as saying that they won't prevent the running of Windows on the Mactels. I think you'll find that getting Windows and Linux up and running will be left to a 3rd party.

Why on earth would Apple *not* desperately want to be in control of this soon critical unique selling point of it's productline?

We don't want the assumption that windows is on every Mactel as that will indeed hamper the development of native Macintosh applications.

Developers won't assume that, since they're developers and it's part of their job to know that Windows is not even going to be close to be on every Mactel.

Virtualization is going to happen regardless of whether Apple wanted it or not. Now that the common denominator is intel procs and chipsets I expect to see companies like VMware jump into the fray. Apple really doesn't have to do much other than add a bit of code to manage the possibility of a tripple boot system.

So we agree that people can have Windows on their Macs anyway.
So we agree that Apple has already made the choice to let Windows in, if the user wants it and pays Microsoft for the software.
Well, Apple is no second too early, because by now the amount of 3rd party developers is marginal & shrinking, while after the processor switch, the Mac will be more attractive, so more Macs will be sold, so there will be a larger installed base of Mac OS X.

And here is what a few people seem to forget:

This installed base by defenition prefers OS X over Windows and will buy applications that have a Mac OS X version of it, rather than their Windows only competitors. *If they have the choice.*
If they don't have the choice, they will still be able to run those Windows apps on a Mac, which they otherwise *would have had* to run on Windows machines, together with all the applications they *could* have run on a Mac, but didn't because they *had* to buy a Windows machine.

That's what happens anyway, regardless if Apple restricts their efforts in this area to making some boot volume selection software.

But why on earth would they do only that? Why wouldn't they make their hardware even more attractive by making cooperation between OSes as seemless as they can, so people who have to buy Windows for their Mac still have a reasonably Mac worthy experience?

After all, these users run Windows only because they *need to*, but don't *want to* run some apps that are critical to them in Windows. Why not make it as easy as possible for them to still use Mac OS X as much as they can?

You wouldn't want these people to *have* to boot their Mac in Windows all the time for some Microsoft Access application they use for their job, or MS exchange. And never run Mac OS X on their Mac!
If they need to re-boot in order to get into Mac mode, why would these people have bought the Mac anyway?

[hmurchison]

They won't actively promote it because

1. It would require undue engineering resources
2. It runs counter to promoting their own OS
3. Once Apple promotes it they move dangerously to having to support
Macs running Intel. That's a whole 'nother beast.

Virtualization will happen but Apple will give little but a cursory glance over at it.

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by hmurchison They won't actively promote it because 1. It would require undue engineering resources

Ok could be - I don't know how much they have available. Just for the sake of idea generating, I assumed Apple has limitless resources. That is to say, I'm of the opinion that they should appoint them abundantly to this.

2. It runs counter to promoting their own OS

Depends on how they sell it. I suppose it could be brought in a Jobsian way, like: "Mac OS X allows Windows Vista to run inside it!" Ok I might be overestimating the ability of the audience to see the nuances...

3. Once Apple promotes it they move dangerously to having to support Macs running Intel. That's a whole 'nother beast.

I suppose you mean having to support Macs running Windows - yes, that seems a strong point I haven't thought about yet. They don't control Windows and can't promise too much when it comes to interoperatability... Yeah I'm going to think about what limitations this brings and how they might be overcome of course...

Virtualization will happen but Apple will give little but a cursory glance over at it.

I think that like Apple does with every feature, they will smile blissfully and say it's heaven. The only difference is in how often they'll pay attention to it and how specific they'll be in their promises...
Oh well maybe that's the cursory glance you're talking about... the way Jobs praised the ROKR but meanwhile unnoticably voodooed it...